Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I read the permafrost article, what a joke. I'm sure those maniacs believe themselves.

This is an even dumber article from the gov. At first the writer states that the sun does or could have some effect on temperatures since it's responsible for the warmth of earth - "Theheat wavethat affected the eastern and central United States in March 2012 coincided witha flurry of solar eruptions,and it’s not unreasonable to wonder if such events are related. After all, the Sun’s energy is the source of Earth’s warmth." But then later goes on to say the sun has no affect on Anthropogenic warming.

Okay. This is impressively horrible. But since there is absolutely nothing* we can do about that, could we stop shouting? The Shakespeare quote at the end of the story is charming.

*Within a reasonable period** of time, which would have merited the sense of urgency alarmists are insisting on.

** About 20 years or so.

The Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant, in the Russian Chukotka the northernmost operating nuclear power plant in the world is built on melting permafrost. Now they plan to decommission and replace it by a floating nuclear powerplant. Let's hope the decommissioning will be completed before the permafrost melts.

If you think global warming could be a good news for Yakutsk, one of the coldest cities on Earth, think again. The city is built on permafrost and imagine what is happening to the housing blocks built on a melting permafrost ground...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I don't think it's good news. However, I don't see what can be done in months or even a few years to deal with this. Funny you should mention Yakutsk as I'm doing some research on Sakha right now. Thanks!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I know y'all hate political correctness, but the verdict is still out on scientific correctness from my experience here. Anyhow, I thought you all should know that permafrost does not "melt" as it degrades, rather it "thaws" (see article below). I doubt this knowledge has much effect on your enjoyment of reveling in outrage on the subject, but thought you may appreciate being better informed of the physics of what is actually happening...

From EOS, V.91, n 9, p. 87, Mar. 2010

Why Permafrost Is Thawing, Not Melting

As global climate change is becoming an increasingly important political and social issue, it is essential for the cryospheric and global change research communities to speak with a single voice when using basic terminology to communicate research results and describe underlying physical processes. Experienced science communicators have highlighted the importance of using the correct terms to communicate research results to the media and general public [e.g., Akasofu, 2008; Hassol, 2008]. The consequences of scientists using improper terminology are at best oversimplification, but they more likely involve misunderstandings of the facts by the public.

A glaring example of scientifically incorrect terminology appearing frequently in scientific and public communication relates to reports on the degradation of permafrost. Numerous research papers have appeared in recent years, broadly echoed in the news media, describing the “melting of permafrost,” its effects in the Arctic, and its feedbacks on climate through the carbon cycle. Although permafrost researchers have attempted to distinguish between the appropriate term “permafrost thawing” and the erroneous “permafrost melting” [e.g., van Everdingen, 2005; French, 2002], the latter is still used widely. A Web-based search using the phrase “permafrost melting” reveals hundreds of occurrences, many from highly regarded news and scientific organizations, including Reuters, New Scientist, ABC, The Guardian, Discovery News, Smithsonian magazine, the National Science Foundation, and others.

“Permafrost melting” is incorrect terminology that results from a misinterpretation of the physical process of permafrost degradation. “Melting” describes a physical phase change during a temperature increase when a solid substance is transformed into a liquid state. Hence, the term “permafrost melting” suggests the transition of solidly frozen permafrost terrain into a liquid. However, permafrost is properly defined as “all ground (earth material) that remains below 0° Celsius for at least two consecutive years” [van Everdingen, 2005]. As such, it is composed of soils, sediments, bedrock, and organic materials, which may or may not include water in the form of ice. Some of these substrates contain ice in pore space and cracks, or include larger bodies of almost pure ice, while others are completely ice-free. Ice-rich permafrost, like the Siberian Yedoma-type deposits, contains more than 70% ice by volume in its upper 30 meters. Warming this ground above 0°C will have dramatic effects on the terrain due to the volume loss from melting ice and subsequent differential subsidence of the land surface, a process often referred to as thermokarst. But even in such ice-rich permafrost types, only that 70% or so of the ground volume constituting the ice melts—not the mineral and organic component of the permafrost. To speak of “melting permafrost” implies that all components of permafrost are turning into a liquid, which is erroneous. In terrain types with much less ground ice, which are widespread in the Arctic and in alpine mountain regions [Brown et al., 1998], warming above 0°C will have virtually no direct impact on the land surface.

Use of the term “permafrost melting” not only indicates misunderstanding of permafrost properties and the processes involved in permafrost degradation, but also leads to misinterpretation of the potential consequences of this process. Because melting
of ice—a physically valid phrase—is common knowledge, the inappropriate phrase “permafrost melting” conveys an image of permafrost as a form of underground ice, undergoing a complete solid-to-liquid transition much like glaciers and ice sheets. Defrosting food is a much better analogy for communicating about permafrost thaw to the general public. Like most,foodstuffs, permafrost does not liquefy completely when its temperature exceeds 0°C. Similarly, during permafrost thaw, only the ground ice melts, while mineral and organic particles, which represent the majority in many permafrost types by volume, remain solid.

Although some individuals may regard “permafrost melting” as an acceptable simplification, we advocate a different view. “Permafrost melting” is partly an oversimplification that ignores basic geophysical processes and partly sloppy science communication, both with unwanted implications for communicating scientific information and educating students and the public about climate change.

This example from permafrost research has equivalents in other geophysical research fields—for example, some writers refer to sea ice on the Arctic Ocean as an “ice cap,” although that term properly applies to bodies of glacial ice of particular dimensions and morphology. Sometimes scientific writers unknowingly neglect or oversimplify basic physical, biological, or chemical processes, especially when working across disciplines. We strongly encourage authors working on cross-disciplinary topics or reaching outside their own research fields to ensure that they use basic terminology accurately. We also encourage reviewers and editors of scientific journals receiving manuscripts to be more rigorous in following up on the use of appropriate scientific terminology for basic physical processes.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I know y'all hate political correctness, but the verdict is still out on scientific correctness from my experience here. Anyhow, I thought you all should know that permafrost does not "melt" as it degrades, rather it "thaws" (see article below). I doubt this knowledge has much effect on your enjoyment of reveling in outrage on the subject, but thought you may appreciate being better informed of the physics of what is actually happening...

The issue is just media reporting on stuff outside their expertise.

Another frequent and really bad one is messing up battery capacity units in multiple ways. Frequently to the point of rendering the article meaningless.

At least with “melting” we can get the idea, but yes, journalism needs a science editor that can at least get definitions and units right.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Bilibino Nuclear Power Plant, in the Russian Chukotka the northernmost operating nuclear power plant in the world is built on melting permafrost. Now they plan to decommission and replace it by a floating nuclear powerplant. Let's hope the decommissioning will be completed before the permafrost melts.

If you think global warming could be a good news for Yakutsk, one of the coldest cities on Earth, think again. The city is built on permafrost and imagine what is happening to the housing blocks built on a melting permafrost ground...

Another frequent and really bad one is messing up battery capacity units in multiple ways. Frequently to the point of rendering the article meaningless.

At least with “melting” we can get the idea, but yes, journalism needs a science editor that can at least get definitions and units right.

Maybe but the slant of journalists is inherent with the massive amounts of money that the left donates to journalism schools and the far left professors who teach journalism. They don't look for the truth, they look for leftist propaganda. 90% of journalists and Professors are Democrats. ( That might be a slight overstatement because conservative or truly moderate professors are very quiet for fear of losing their jobs. We could save a lot of money by using discretion in what departments we help fund.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mostly the same way fossil fuel supporters have created false doubt in the level of scientific agreement that we are creating big problems for ourselves with global warming.

The more people speak up for the truth. The more people will listen and hopefully review the facts for themselves.

Yet the evidence does not support the proposition that whatever "Man" is doing in terms of burning oil is having an untoward effect on the climate, and specifically is creating "global warming." That is admittedly a bit counter-intuitive: one would think that, by burning up some 40 million barrels a day of oil, or more, and doing that for a century, it would have at least some effect. Toss in the amount of coal burned in the last two thousand years and you really have to start wondering about the overall impacts. Yet, when compared with the amount of heat energy bathed on the earth from the sun, it is trivial.

Is the sun entering into a phase where expanded burning of its fuel base (i.e. "sunspot activity") is increasing? And if so, is that the causal element driving an apparent, or perceived, increase in earth surface temperature? Or in the alternative, is convective activity underneath the earth mantle generating heating that is penetrating to the surface? Both those events seem to be happening.

OK, so let's for the argument suppose that human actions are generating excess heat. It is then suggested that this activity is creating monster storms, Category 5 hurricanes, that sort of thing. The proposition is that the warmer seas and atmosphere generate more evaporation from the seas, which gets deposited on the land, which will cause flooding, and will melt the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the seas will rise by 25 feet. Yet this is a rather long sequence chain, each dependent on the precedent element in order to be validated, to be causally chased back to man activity in burning coal and oil. How logical is this? turns out, not very plausible.

Here's why. Your excess rainfall is created all across the seas (you don't see it because you are not living on a raft in the South Pacific, but that does not mean it is not raining there). The moisture rises up into the atmosphere until it is saturated. A lot of that moisture now drifts with the prevailing winds over land, where the moving air masses strike rising terrain. At that point the moist air rises up, and reaches colder elevations, the air becomes saturated (or even super-saturated), and comes out of the atmosphere are rain or snow. Now what?

Well, a certain amount of that rain falls over aquifers, and if more and more is coming down, then some portion is being absorbed into the soil to recharge those aquifers. For example, underneath the Sahara are large aquifers; where you see an oasis or wadi, that is the aquifer poking its top surface out through a lower spot of the land. Lots of rain is falling over land areas where it would, eventually, make its way onto areas that have been reduced in water. Examples are the Aral Sea, the Sahara, the Gobi, and large stretches of the US Southwest. Other areas with low water content include deserts in Chile and Bolivia, and swaths of Australia.

Can "Man" give a little push to the recharge of aquifers and to hold back or reverse desertification? Of course it can. It would be easy enough to dig a surface canal from the upstream Congo River then North into the Sahel, the area of the Sahara that previously was a savanna, now is rapidly desertifying. And that really will not cost that much, as land acquisition costs and labor costs are going to be quite low.

Another approach is the diversion of a branch of the Nile River, likely right at the very end after the water has fertilized and dropped its sediment in the Delta. Just to the West of the Delta lies the Qattara Depression, a quite deep drop into the earth with no outlet. It is several hundred feet below sea level. You could build a hydro plant at the lip, and a canal to take one branch that otherwise would flow into the Med and run it through the electricity plant and then drop into the Depression. Now a lot of that river water would seep back into the earth and into the adjacent aquifers, nothing like lots of fresh water going in there to make the gardeners smile.

And you can repeat that process at the edges of other chronic drought areas, creating both new lakes (or inland seas) and groundwater replenishment. For example, the US Great Lakes have dropped several feet because the Army Corps of Engineers decided to remove several feet of river bottom from the St. Clair River, connecting Lake Erie to Lake Huron at Detroit, in the misguided idea that this would improve channel depth for lake freighters. But that narrow river (with that shelf for the bottom) acted as a cork to contain the waters of the Great Lakes. Replacing that "cork" and then constructing a by-pass lock would bring tens of thousands of acre-feet back into the Great Lakes, which in turn could be canaled Southwest into and over the Ogallala Aquifer, and over heartland US farmland. That would be a lot more expensive than a project for the Congo, but hey, the US needs to deal with water shortages in the Southwest. Can it be done? Sure it can.

So if you remain convinced that man's activities in burning fuels is creating global warming, and you want to do something about it, those projects are eminently achievable, needy, and cost a lot less than covering the planet with windmills and solar panels. Think about it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mostly the same way fossil fuel supporters have created false doubt in the level of scientific agreement that we are creating big problems for ourselves with global warming.

The more people speak up for the truth. The more people will listen and hopefully review the facts for themselves.

You mean the scientists of a more sceptical bent are by definition shills for Big Oil? Um, okay. I haven't really heard any shouting from the fossil fuel camp, they're more the quiet type, I'd say, but I see shouting about the climate makes people vandalise stuff and glue themselves to stuff and I'm not sure how this helps. For me, it's extremely offputting and I doubt I'm the only one.